lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 21:31:49 +0100 From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>, Glauber Costa <glommer@...nvz.org> Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with Linus' tree On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 04:25:48PM -0400, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote: > \> > > It is right - for one thing, we are holding the lock on that LRU list, > > so list_lru_del() would deadlock right there. For another, the same > > list_lru_walk (OK, list_lru_walk_node()) will do ->nr_items decrement > > when we return LRU_REMOVED to it, so we don't want to do it twice. > > Plain list_del_init() is correct here. > > Yes. And I found the opposite bug in one place: when we are collecting > dentries by walking the parents etc, we do *not* hold the global RCU > lock, ??? LRU list lock, presumably? so we cannot use the "d_lru_shrink_list()" thing after all. It's > correct as far as the internal logic of fs/dcache.c goes, but it > violates the global LRU list rules. So I replaced that with a > dentry_lru_del() followed by a d_shrink_add() instead. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists